Relational EPR

Smerlak, Matteo; Rovelli, Carlo

doi:10.1007/s10701-007-9105-0

Cited by 160 publications

(155 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

150

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…What these predictions are, and what the corresponding laws and operators represent, will mostly depend on the interpretation of probabilities one adopts. Smerlak Rovelli (2007) claim that a subjective interpretation is required for RQM, i.e. that probabilities would merely correspond to degrees of credence, but Dorato (2013) suggests instead a dispositional interpretation, where events have dispositions to produce other events, and measurements are the stimulus.…”

Section: Ontology and Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Typically, p b concerns P at t, but it is relative to O 2 at t . And this is how Smerlak Rovelli (2007) pretend to solve the problem of locality: since information on P must travel back to O 2 , and since no information travels faster than light, locality is not violated. This is rather intuitive, but itthe argument deserves a more precise analysis.…”

Section: The Locality and Completeness Of Rqmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Carlo Rovelli has proposed an interpretation of quantum mechanics, which he has dubbed relational quantum mechanics (RQM) (Rovelli, 1996;Smerlak Rovelli, 2007). Rovelli claims that this interpretation solves the measurement problem while preserving both the locality and completeness of quantum mechanics, all this without additional structure nor many-worlds.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In any case, Smerlak Rovelli (2007) explicitely reject relationism: there cannot be absolute facts; everything (presumably concerning particulars) should be evaluated from a given perspective. One should not attempt to combine the views of different observers in a single picture.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Can We Make Sense of Relational Quantum Mechanics?

Ruyant

2018

Found Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relational interpretation of quantum mechanics proposes to solve the measurement problem and reconcile completeness and locality of quantum mechanics by postulating relativity to the observer for events and facts, instead of an absolute "view from nowhere". The aim of this paper is to clarify this interpretation, and in particular, one of its central claims concerning the possibility for an observer to have knowledge about other observer's events. I consider three possible readings of this claim (deflationist, relationist and relativist), and develop the most promising one, relativism, to show how it fares when confronted with the traditional interpretative problems of quantum mechanics. Although it provides answers to some problems, I claim that there is currently no adapted locality criterion to evaluate whether the resulting interpretation is local or not.

show abstract

Section: Ontology and Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Locality and Completeness Of Rqmmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Can We Make Sense of Relational Quantum Mechanics?

Ruyant

2018

Found Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, we take the quantum state to represent the observer's 'catalogue of knowledge' about the observed system(s), rather than an intrinsic state of the latter. This is conceptually motivated by and in line with the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics [1,10,[36][37][38], the informational interpretation in [11,12,14,16] and (at least elements of) QBism [39][40][41]. While this general philosophy goes back to Rovelli's seminal relational quantum mechanics [10], none of these earlier works provide a concrete framework from which to reconstruct the theory.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantum theory from questions

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We reconstruct the explicit formalism of qubit quantum theory from elementary rules on an observer's information acquisition. Our approach is purely operational: we consider an observer O interrogating a system S with binary questions and define S's state as O's 'catalogue of knowledge' about S. From the rules we derive the state spaces for N elementary systems and show that (a) they coincide with the set of density matrices over an N -qubit Hilbert space C 2 N ; (b) states evolve unitarily under the group PSU(2 N ) according to the von Neumann evolution equation; and (c) O's binary questions correspond to projective Pauli operator measurements with outcome probabilities given by the Born rule. As a by-product, this results in a propositional formulation of quantum theory. Aside from offering an informational explanation for the theory's architecture, the reconstruction also unravels new structural insights. We show that, in a derived quadratic information measure, (d) qubits satisfy inequalities which bound the information content in any set of mutually complementary questions to 1 bit; and (e) maximal sets of mutually complementary questions for one and two qubits must carry precisely 1 bit of information in pure states. The latter relations constitute conserved informational charges which define the unitary groups and, together with their conservation conditions, the sets of pure quantum states. These results highlight information as a 'charge of quantum theory' and the benefits of this informational approach. This work emphasizes the sufficiency of restricting to an observer's information to reconstruct the theory and completes the quantum reconstruction initiated in [1].

show abstract

A categorical framework for quantum theory

Filk

Müller

2010

Annalen der Physik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Underlying any theory of physics is a layer of conceptual frames. They connect the mathematical structures used in theoretical models with physical phenomena, but they also constitute our fundamental assumptions about reality. Many of the discrepancies between quantum physics and classical physics (including Maxwell's electrodynamics and relativity) can be traced back to these categorical foundations. We argue that classical physics corresponds to the factual aspects of reality and requires a categorical framework which consists of four interdependent components: boolean logic, the linear-sequential notion of time, the principle of sufficient reason, and the dichotomy between observer and observed. None of these can be dropped without affecting the others.However, in quantum theory the reduction postulate also addresses the "status nascendi" of facts, i.e., their coming into being. Therefore, quantum phyics requires a different conceptual framework which will be elaborated in this article. It is shown that many of its components are already present in the standard formalisms of quantum physics, but in most cases they are highlighted not so much from a conceptual perspective but more from their mathematical structures. The categorical frame underlying quantum physics includes a profoundly different notion of time which encompasses a crucial role for the present.

show abstract

Relational EPR

Cited by 160 publications

References 33 publications

Can We Make Sense of Relational Quantum Mechanics?

Can We Make Sense of Relational Quantum Mechanics?

Quantum theory from questions

A categorical framework for quantum theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About